Why

WHY

No one nor 100% never (Godel, Tarski, Zadeh, etc), so no one ToE but the simpler ToEs tool is posible (LoL)

Everybody wants more and or better love. Since the physical mechanism we live in applies to all we see, experience or interact, and it comes with the posibility of understanding it from simple poles of 2, we should be able to recognize close behaviours in our daily habits that are already following the natural mechanism where by more love is pumped. More love flows when playing and realizing what’s important, worth, valueable, meaningful or more truth. We can now see here that truth and love are a relative dual (as words and language is too), so truth or love are not enough by themselves, each of them need a refined complementary pole for making more sense.

We closely and daily do this polarizing, truth and love research exercise with checkable outer Words and Language. Words are yet another physical matter, language is their body. We use words and language to form further evolved matter for our own please, and we can see also how this forming trend is yet one more reflection of the underlying mechanism of everything at the same time.

Language follows and shows the evolutionary trends that are subjected to physical laws of explainability through simple poles of 2 and 3 (in scalar superposition, etc). So by getting deeper in playing and understanding groups and sets of 2 and 3 words, it should be enough for bringing meaning-truth (coherent semantic analogies) through language to its lovelier and more complex forms (pairs and triads of words combinations).

To combine worthy words more meaningfully brings more truth

To tell the whole of it, brings even more overall meaningfulness

Once you see each of the words more clear, it is much easier to practice what they suggest, which leads to the task and loop of:

The more a theory arrives at proposing actions integrally, the better the theory.

The more an organized action is coherent within a transparent theory, the more meaning and impact the action has.

 

See also: What